A comprehensive neurological perspective on tick-borne flaviviruses, with emphasis on Powassan virus.

Powassan virus (POWV), a tick-borne flavivirus transmitted primarily by Ixodes ticks, poses a significant threat as it can lead to severe neuroinvasive illness. This review delves into the nuanced clinical presentation of Powassan infection, a challenge in diagnosis exacerbated by the absence of an available vaccine. Over the past decade, the prevalence of POWV has surged in North America, necessitating a thorough examination of its neurological manifestations alongside tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV). A comprehensive literature search conducted up to January 2024 revealed 135 cases of neurological symptoms associated with either Powassan or TBEV infection. Notably, severe occipital headache emerged as the most prevalent symptom (22.75%), followed by meningoencephalitis (10.34%), seizures (8.27%), and flaccid paresis (6.8%). Additional manifestations included poor balance, wide gait, dysarthria, facial nerve palsy, seizure, slurred speech, and absent deep tendon reflexes. Tragically, nine cases resulted in fatal outcomes attributed to POWV infection. This analysis highlights the intricate spectrum of neurological symptoms associated with Powassan infection and underscores the necessity for heightened awareness among medical practitioners, particularly in regions with a higher prevalence of the virus. The complexity of symptoms emphasizes the need for further research to unravel the factors contributing to this diversity. Additionally, exploring potential treatment avenues and vaccine development is crucial in addressing the rising threat posed by POWV, ultimately enhancing our ability to manage and prevent severe neurological outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of once-weekly insulin icodec compared to once-daily insulin g U-100 in patients with type II diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND//OBJECTIVE: Diabetes affects millions of people globally, despite treatment options, adherence and other factors pose obstacles. Once-weekly Insulin Icodec, a novel basal Insulin analog with a week-long half-life, offers potential benefits, enhancing convenience, adherence, and quality of life for improved glycemic control. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of once-weekly Insulin Icodec compared to once-daily Insulin Glargine U-100 in individuals with type II diabetes (T2D). METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, and Cochrane Library databases before September 2023 to identify relevant Randomized control trials (RCTs) with no language restrictions following PRISMA guidelines. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool was used for quality assessment. All statistical analyses were conducted using RevMan (version 5.4; Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014). RESULT: Four RCTs published from 2020 to 2023 with a cumulative sample size of 1035 were included. The pooled mean difference (MD) revealed a 4.68% longer TIR (%) with Insulin Icodec compared to Insulin Glargine U-100 [{95% CI (0.69, 8.68), p = 0.02}], the estimated mean changes in HbA1c (%) and FPG (mg%) were found to be insignificant between the two groups [MD = - 0.12 {95% CI (- 0.26, 0.01), p = 0.07}] and [MD = - 2.59 {95% CI (- 6.95, 1.78), p = 0.25}], respectively. The overall OR for hypoglycemia was also nonsignificant between the two regimens 1.04 [{95% CI (0.71, 1.52), p = 0.84}]. Other safety parameters were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Switching from daily Insulin Glargine U-100 to weekly Insulin Icodec showed longer TIR (%) as well as similar blood glycemic control and safety profile. Hence, it may be a good alternate option for management of longstanding T2D.

Efficacy and safety of fezolinetant for vasomotor symptoms in postmenopausal women: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Vasomotor symptoms (VMS), such as hot flashes and night sweats, are highly prevalent and burdensome for women experiencing menopausal transition. Fezolinetant, a selective neurokinin 3 receptor (NK3R) antagonist, is a potential therapeutic option for mitigating VMS. OBJECTIVES: Our aim is to assess the efficacy and evaluate the safety profile of fezolinetant compared with placebo in post-menopausal women suffering from VMS, by pooling all the relevant data and reflecting the most current evidence. SEARCH STRATEGY/SELECTION CRITERIA: An extensive literature search was performed in the PubMed, Medline and Cochrane Library databases from inception until June 2023 to identify relevant trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for continuous outcomes. Risk ratios (RRs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes. All statistical analyses were performed using R Statistical Software. MAIN RESULTS: A total of six randomized controlled trials were added. For the frequency of daily VMS, the combined pooled result favored the fezolinetant group over placebo (MD -2.38, 95% CI -2.64 to -2.12; P < 0.001, I2 = 0%). For the severity of daily VMS, fezolinetant was again found to be superior to the placebo group (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.29; P < 0.001, I2 = 70%). Fezolinetant (120 mg) consistently demonstrated a significant reduction in the severity of daily moderate/severe VMS compared with other doses at both 4 and 12 weeks. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of Greene Climacteric Scale (GCS), PROMIS the Sleep Disturbance Short Form 8b and Menopause-Specific Quality of Life (MENQoL) scores indicated significant improvement with fezolinetant. No significant difference in efficacy of fezolinetant at 4 and 12 weeks were observed in any outcome. As for safety, no significant differences in the treatment emergent adverse events at 12 weeks were found between fezolinetant and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Our study significantly favors fezolinetant over placebo regarding the primary efficacy outcomes of daily moderate to severe VMS frequency and severity, including PROs, while both the groups are comparable in terms of treatment emergent adverse events. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Efficacy and safety of Ciprofol compared with Propofol during general anesthesia induction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCT).

BACKGROUND: Ciprofol, a newer entrant with similarities to propofol, has shown promise with a potentially improved safety profile, making it an attractive alternative for induction of general anesthesia. This meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared with propofol during general anesthesia induction. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using PubMed, Clinical Trial.gov, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to July 2023 to identify relevant studies. All statistical analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.1.2. RESULTS: Thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) encompassing a total of 1998 participants, were included in our analysis. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for postoperative hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Ciprofol is not inferior to Propofol in terms of its effectiveness in general anesthesia. Ciprofol emerges as a valuable alternative sedative with fewer side effects, especially reduced injection pain, when compared to Propofol. SUMMARY: Propofol, frequently utilized as an anesthetic, provides swift onset and quick recovery. However, it has drawbacks such as a narrow effective dosage range and a high occurrence of adverse effects, particularly pain upon injection. Ciprofol, a more recent drug with propofol-like properties, has demonstrated promise and may have an improved safety profile, making it a compelling alternative for inducing general anesthesia. This meta-analysis compared the safety and effectiveness of Ciprofol with Propofol for general anesthesia induction in a range of medical procedures, encompassing thirteen Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and 1998 individuals. The pooled analysis indicated that Ciprofol was associated with a notably lower incidence of pain upon injection [RR: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.23; I^2 = 43%, p < 0.0000001] and was non-inferior to propofol in terms of anesthesia success rate [RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.01; I^2 = 0%; p = 0.43]. In terms of safety, the incidence of hypotension was significantly lower in the ciprofol group [RR:0.82; 95% CI:0.68 to 0.98; I^2 = 48%; p = 0.03]. However, no statistically significant differences were found for hypertension, bradycardia, or tachycardia. In conclusion, ciprofol is equally effective at inducing and maintaining general anesthesia as propofol. When compared to propofol, ciprofol is a better alternative sedative for operations including fiberoptic bronchoscopy, gynecological procedures, gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and elective surgeries because it has less adverse effects, most notably less painful injections.